UNION OF INDIAversusRAJIV KUMAR

                            UNION OF INDIA                                      A
                                   v.
                             RAJIV KUMAR

                              JULY 18, 2003

          [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.]                             B


     Service Law:

      Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appealj Rules, 1965;
Rules 10(2)(a), 10(3), 10(4) and 10(5)(a), (b), (c): Deemed suspension of C
employee for custodial detention exceeding 48 hours-Release on bail-
Continuance of suspension until further orders-Challenge to-CAT directed
authorities to pass speaking/reasoned order-A uthQrities issued order
continuing the suspension-Challenge t<r-High Court held that provision of
law could not be construed to mean that deemed suspension continues till D
withdrawal of order ofsuspension-Deemed suspension and its continuance--
Scope and ambit of-Held: Order ofsuspension deemed to have passed by the
operation of legal fictions has as much efficacy/force/operation as an actual
order-Suspension continues to be operative and employee has no right to be
reinstated in service until order is modified/revoked by the authorities-The
order is not restricted to the period of actual detention only-Merely because E
suspension is for a long period does' not invalidate the order.

     Interpretation of Statutes:

      'casus omiscus' and 'reading statutes/statutory provisions as a whole'-
Principles of construction-Discussed.                                           F
      Legal Maxims: Maxim "quod semal au/ bis existit proetereunt
legislature"-Meaning of

      Words and Phrases:
                                                                                G
      'deemed suspension '-Meaning of

      Respondent-employee was arrested for having committed certain
offence and detained in custody for a period exceeding 48 hours. Hence,
suspended under Rule 10(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification,
                                  597                                           H
    598                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A Control and Appeal) Rules. Authorities had passed an order continuing his
    suspension until further orders. Respondent challenged the order before the
    Central Administration Tribunal. CAT directed concerned authorities to
    dispose of the matter by a reasoned and speaking order. Authorities disposed
    of the matter, which was challenged by the respondent. High Court held that
    sub-rule (2) of Rule lO could not be construed to mean that the deemed
B   suspension for custodial detention exceeding 48 hours would continue until
    withdrawn and that the suspension comes to an end by operation of law after
    release of the employee from detention. Hence the present appeals by the Union
    oflndia.

C          It was contended for the Union of India that if the interpretation of sub-
    rule (2) of Rule I 0 of the Act as deduced by the High Court would he accepted,
    it would result in extension/enlargement of scope of Rule 10(2) and it would
    render Rule 5(a) purposeless.

          It was submitted by the respondents that the order of suspension passed
D under Rule 10(2)(a) could not be extended beyond the period of detention of
    the employee under Rule 10(2), 10(3), 10(4) and 10(5)(a)of the Rules; and
    that an employee could not be placed under suspension for an indefinite period
    of time.

          Allowing the appeals, the Court
E
           HELD: I.I. Rule 10(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification,
    Control and Appeal) Rules is a deemed provision and creates a legal
    fiction. The provision shows that an actual order is not required to be
    passed but is deemed to have been passed by operation of the legal fiction.
    It has as much efficacy, force and operation as an order otherwise
F   specifically passed under other provisions. It does not speak of any period
    of its effectiveness. (606-B-C]

        1.2. The provision under Rule lO(S)(a) makes it crystal clear that the
  order continues to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by an
G authority competent to do so while Rule 10(5)(c) empowers the competent
  authority t11 modify or revoke it. No exception is made relating to an order
  under Rules 10(2) and lO(S)(a). On the contrary, specifically it encompasses
  an order under Rule 10(2). lftheorderdeemed to have been made under Rule
  10(2) is to lose effectiveness automatically after the period of detention
  envisaged comes to an end, there would be no scope for the same being
H modified. There was no need to makt' such provisions as are engrafted in Rule
                            U.0.l. v. RAJ!V KUMAR                            599

10(5)(a) and (c) of the Rules and instead an equally deeming provision to bring      A
an end to the duration of the deemed order would by itself suffice for the
purpose. Thus, it is clear that the order of suspension does not lose its efficacy
and is not automatically terminated the moment the detention comes to an
end and the person is set at large and until the order is modified the same
continues by the operation of Rule I 0(5)(a) of the Rules and the employee has       B
no right to be reinstated to service. [606-E-H[

      Balvantrai Ratilal Patel v. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1968) SC 800,
relied on.

      1.3. It is well-settled principle in law that the Court cannot read C
anything into a statutory provision or rewrite a provision which is plain
and unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the Legislature. The language
employed in a statute or any statutory provision is the determinative factor
of legislative intent of policy makers. Words and phrases are symbols that
stimulate mental references to referents. The object of interpreting a
statute or any statutory provision is to ascertain the intention of the D
Legislature or the Authority enacting it. The intention of the maker is
primarily to be gathered from the language used. As a consequence, a
construction which requires for its support, addition or substitution of
words or which results in rejection of words as meaningless has to be
avoided. While interpreting a provision, the Court only interprets the law E
and cannot legislate it. If a provision of law is misused and subjected to
the abuse of process of law, it is for the legislature to amend, modify or
repeal it, if deemed necessary. (607-D-G; 608-E[

     Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Mis. Price Waterhouse
and Anr., AIR (1998) SC 74, relied on.                                               p
       The State of Gujarat and Ors. v. Dilipbhai Nathjibhai Patel and Anr.
JT (1998) 2 SC 253; Jamma Masjid, Mercara v. Kodimaniandra Deviah and
Ors., AIR (1962) SC 847; Union of India and Ors. v. Eilip Tiago De Gama of
Vedem Vasco De Gama, AIR (1990) SC 981; D.R. Venkatchalam and Ors.
etc., v. Dy. Transport Commissioner and Ors. etc., AIR (1997) SC 842 and G
Commissioner ojSales Tax, M.P. v. Popular Trading Company, Ujjain, (20001
5 sec 515, referred to.

      Grawford v. Spooner, (1846) 6 Moore PC I; Stock v. Frank Jones
(Tipton) ltd., (1978) 1 All ER 948 (HL) and lenigh Valley Coal Co. v S.
Yensavage, 218 FR 547, referred to.                                                  H
    600                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A          1.4. Two principles of construction - one relating to casus omissus and
    the other in regard to reading the statute/statutory provision as a whole are
    well settled. Under the first principle a casus omissus cannot be supplied by
    the Court except in the case of clear necessity and when reason for it is found
    in the four corners of the statute itself. But, at the same time a casus omissus
B   should not be readily inferred and for that purpose all the parts of a statute
    or section must be construed together and every clause of a section should be
    construed with reference to the context and other clauses thereof so that the
    construction to be put on a particular provision makes a consistent enactment
    of the whole statute. This would be more so if literal construction of a
    particular clause leads to manifestly absurd or anomalous results which could
C   not have been intended by the Legislature. A casus omissus ought not to be
    created by interpretation, save in some case of strong necessity. Where,
    however, a casus omissus does really occur, either through the inadvertence
    of the legislature, or on the principle quod semel aut bis existit proetereunt
    legislatores, the rule is that the particular case, thus left unprovided for, must
D   be disposed of according to the law as it existed before such statute.
                                                                     [608-F-H; 609-Df

         Artemiou v. Procopiou,. (1966) I QB 878; Luke v. IRC, (1966) AC 557;
    Fenton v. Hampton, II Moore, P.C. 345; Jones v. Smart (I T.R. 52); Grey v.
    Pearson 6 H.L. Case 61 and Abley v. Dale II, C.8. 378, referred to.
E          1.5. Conceptually sub-rules 5(a) and 5(b) of the Rules operate in
    different fields and for different purposes, i.e., when more than one
    disciplinary proceedings come to be initiated to cover all such situations.
    Both the provisions have to be read harmoniously. Otherwise, sub-rule
    5(a) would become meaningless and sub-rule 5(c) purposeless and both
F   provisions would be rendered otiose and superfluous. ~ule 10(5)(b) can
    be pressed into service only when any other disciplinary proceeding is also
    commenced than the one·for and during which suspension or deemed
    suspension was already in force, to meet the situation until the termination
    of all such proceedings. In contradiction, Rule 10(5)(a) has application in
    relation to an order of suspension already made or deemed to have been
G   made. Rule 10(5)(b) has no application to the facts of the present case. It
    is Rule 10(5)(a) alone which has application and the deemed suspension
    would continue to be in force till anything has been done under Rule
    10(5)(c). Similarly, Rules 10(3) and 10(4) operate in different fields and
    merely because a specific provision is made for its continuance, until further
H   orders in them itself due to certain further developments taking place and
                     U.0.1. v. RA.HY KUMAR [PASA YAT. J.]                 601

interposition of orders made by Court or appellate and reviewing authority to    A
meet and get over such specific eventualities, in given circumstances and that
does not in any way affect the order of suspension deemed to have been made
under rule 10(2).1607-B-C; 610-C-E)

        Nelson Matis v. Union of India, 1199214 SCC 711, distinguished.
                                                                                 B
     Chandra Shekhar Saxena and Ors. v. Director of Eduction (Basic) U.P.,
Lucknow and Anr., (1997) Allahabad Law Journal 963, 110t approved.

       2. The plea that suspension for a very long period renders it invalid
is clearly untenable. The period of suspension should not be unnecessarily
prolonged but if plausible reasons exist and the authorities feel that the       C
suspension needs to be continued, merely because it is for a long period
that does not invalidate the order of suspension. (611-A, BJ

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5007 of
2003.
                                                                                 D
      From the Judgment and Order dated 31.5.2002 of the Delhi High Court
in C.W.P. No. 4746 of2001.

                                       WITH

        C.A. No. 5008 of2003.                                                    E
     S.B. Sanyal, K.S. Bhati, B.V. Balaram Das, Ms. Binu Tamta, for P.
Parmeswaran, M.Z. Choudhary, Anis Ahmed Khan, P. Chakravarty and Ms.
Manita Verma for the appearing parties.

        Cav~ator-in-person.                                                      F
        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Delay condoned in SLP (C)l2703/2003 (CC
5872/2003). Leave granted.
                                                                                 G
      The basic issue in these two appeals relates to the scope and ambit of
Sub-Rule (2) of Rule IO of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control
and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (in short the 'Rules') vis-a-vis other provisions of
the said Rule.

        Division Bench of the Delhi High Court by the impugned judgment in       H
    602                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A each case held that Sub-Rule (2) of Rule I0 does not contain any provision
    wherefrom it can be deduced that the deemed suspension for custodial
    detention exceeding forty eight hours would continue until it is withdrawn.
    It was further held that on a plain reading of the said provision it is clear that
    the same comes to an end by operation of law after release of the employee
    from detention.
B
          Factual scenario is almost undisputed and needs to be noted in brief.

          Respondent-employee in each case was arrested and detained in custody
    for a period exceeding 48 hours. With reference to Sub-Rule (2) of Rule I 0,
C   the order was passed in each case indicating that in view of the detention in
    custody for a period exceeding 48 hours, the concerned employee is deemed
    to have been suspended with effect from the date of suspension and shall
    remain suspended until further orders.

           The background facts of the appeal relating to respondent-Raj iv Kumar
D   is referred for the purpose of adjudicating the issues involved as the factual
    position in the appeal relating to Bani Singh would not affect ultimate
    conclusions. Raj iv Kumar was arrested on 26.3. I998 for allegedly accepting
    bribe and was released on bail on 2.4. I998. The order purportedly under
    Sub-Rule (2) of Rule I 0 to formally place on record was passed on 15.5. I 998.
    On 2.7.2000 the order dated 15.5.1998 was assailed before the Central
E   Administrative Tribunal (in short the 'CAT') at its Delhi Bench on the ground
    that there was no reason for his continued suspension. The prosecuting agency
    filed challan on 2.9.2000. On I I. I0.2000, Raj iv Kumar filed an application
    for interim relief. On 9. I 1.2000 an order was passed by the authorities
    continuing suspension. By judgment dated 14.3.200 I CAT directed •:he
F   authorities to dispose of the matter by a reasoned and speaking order. An
    application for review was filed on 26.4.2001. It was rejected by an order
    dated 15.5.200 I. In terms of the CA T's directions, an order was passed on
    21.5.2001. The same is stated to be the subject matter of challenge before the
    Mumbai Bench of CAT. On 3.8.2001, Civil Writ Petition No.4746/2001 was
    filed before the Delhi High Court challenging the aforesaid orders dated
G    14.3.2001and15.5.2001. At this juncture, it needs to be noted that there was
    no challenge to the order dated 9. I 1.2000.

          By the impugned judgment, the Delhi High Court came to hold, as
    noted above, that CAT was not correct in remitting the matter back to the
    appointing authority for consideration of the matter afresh. It was, inter alia,
H   observed that if a question of law had been raised before it, CAT was required
                    U.0.1. v. RAJIVKUMAR [PASAYAT.J.]                     603
to apply its mind and pass appropriate orders. The impugned order of A
suspension was quashed. It was held that the order dated 15.5.1998 cannot
be treated to be one passed under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule I0. It was held that
an order of suspension after release of the petitioner on bail could not have
been passed under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule I0 and such order could have been
passed only in terms of Sub-rule (I) of Rule 10. View expressed by a Full B
Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Chandra Shekhar Saxena and Ors. v.
Director of Education (Basic) U.P., Lucknow and Anr., (1997 Allahabad Law
Journal 963) was followed. It was further held that a combined reading of
Rules 10(1), 10(2), 10(3), 10(4) and 10(5)(a) makes the position clear that
the order of suspension was effective for the period of detention and not
beyond it where by legal fiction a person is deemed to be under suspension C
for being in custody for a period exceeding 48 hours.

      For the sake of brevity, different Sub-rules have been referred as Rules
10(1), 10(2), 10(3), 10(4), 10(5)(a), 10(5)(b) and 10(5)(c).

      In Bani Singh's case, the logic was applied, since the legal position was   D
held to be similar.

      In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the Union of India
submitted that if the interpretation put by the High Court is accepted the
same would mean addition of words to Rule I 0(2). The language used in the
said provision is clear and unambiguous and, therefore, there is no scope for     E
making any alteration in the statutory texture. It was further submitted that
by accepting the interpretation, Sub-Rule 5(a) of Rule 10 would also be
rendered purposeless.

       Per contra, respondents-employees who appeared in person submitted
that the interpretation brings out the true essence of a deeming provision,       F
which cannot be extended beyond the purpose for which it was enacted. On
a combined reading of Rules 10(2), 10(3), 10(4) and 10(5)(a) it is claimed
for the respondents that the order of suspension in a case covered under Rule
10(2)(a) has limited operation for the period of detention and not beyond it.
Further it is submitted that an employee cannot be placed under suspension        G
for an indefinite period of time. Though suspension is not penal in character
yet it has serious civil consequences. In the fact till date there has been
practically no progress in criminal proceedings and the departmental actions
initiated.

      With reference to the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control H
    604                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (in short the 'Old Rules'). it is pointed out that there
    is conceptual difference in the relevant provisions and the interpretation put
    by the High Court is in order. Additionally, it is submitted that fresh order of
    suspension has been passed and the appeals have become infructuous because
    of subsequent events.

B         Rule I 0 is the pivotal provision around which the controversy revolves,
    and it reads as follows:

    Rule I0. Suspension

            (I) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate
c           or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that
            behalf by the President, by general or special order, may piace a
            Government servant under suspension -

           (a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or
               is pending; or
D
           (aa) where, in the opinion of the authority aforesaid, he has engaged
                himself in activities prejudicial to the interest of th~ security of
                the State; or
           (b) where acase against him in respect of any criminal offence is
               under investigation, inquiry or trial:
E
                Provided that, except in case of an order of suspension made by
            the Comptroller and Auditor-General in regard to a member of the
            Indian Audit and Accounts Service and in regard to an Assistant
            Accountant-General or equivalent (other than a regular member of
            the Indian Audit and Accounts Service), where the order of suspension
F           is made by an authority lower than the appointing authority, such
            authority shall forthwith report to the appointing authority the
            circumstances in which the order was made.

               (2) A Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed
G           under suspension by an order of appointing authority -
           (a) with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in
               custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period
               exceeding forty-eight hours;
            (b) with effect from the date of his conviction, if, in the event of a
H               conviction for an offence, he is sentenced to a term of
             U.0.1. v. RA.HY KUMAR [PASA Y AT. J.]                 605
     imprisonment exceeding forty-eight hours and is not forthwith         A
     dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent to such
     conviction.
     EXPLANATION - The period of forty-eight hours referred to in
 clause (b) of this sub-rule shall be computed from the commencement
 of the imprisonment after the conviction and for this purpose,            B
 intermittent periods of imprisonment, if any, shall be taken into
 account.

      (3) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory
 retirement from service imposed upon a Government servant under
 suspension is set aside in appeal or on review under these rules and      C
 the case is remitted for further inquiry or action or with any other
 directions, the order of his suspension shall be deemed to have
 continued in force on and from the date of the original order of
 dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall remain in force
 until further orders.
                                                                           D
      (4) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory
 retirement from service imposed upon a Government servant is set
 aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision
 of a Court of Law and the disciplinary authority, on a consideration
 of the circumstances of the case, decides to hold a further inquiry       E
 against him on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal,
 removal or compulsory retirement was originally imposed, the
 Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under
 suspension by the Appointing Authority from the date of the original
 order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall
 continue to remain under suspension until further orders:                 F
     Provided that no such further inquiry shall be ordered unless it is
 intended to meet a situation where the Court has passed an order
 purely on technical grounds without going into the merits of the case.

 (5)(a) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made            G
 under this rule shall continue to remain in force until it is modified
 or revoked by the authority competent to do so.

  5(b) Where a Government servant is suspended or is deemed to have
  been suspended (whether in connection with any disciplinary
• proceeding or otherwise), and any other disciplinary proceeding is H
    606                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A           commenced against him during the continuance of that suspension,
            the authority competent to place him under suspension may, for
            reasons to be recorded by him in writing, direct that the Government
            servant shall continue to be under suspension until the termination
            of all or any of such proceedings.

B           S(c)An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made
            under this rule may at any time be modified or revoked by the authority
            which made or is deemed to have made the order or by any authority
            to which that authority is subordinate."

          Rule 10(2) is a deemed provision and creates a legal fiction. A bare
C reading of the provision shows that an actual order is not required to be
  passed. That is deemed to have been passed by operation of the legal fiction.
  It has as much efficacy, force and operation as an order otherwise specifically
  passed under other provisions. It does not speak of any period of its
  effectiveness. Rules 10(3) and 10(4) operate conceptually in different situations
D and need specific provisions separately on account of interposition of an
  order of Court of law or an order passed by the Appellate or reviewing
  authority and the natural consequences inevitably flowing from such orders.
  Great emphasis is laid on the expressions "until further orders" in the said
  sub-rules to emphasise that such a prescription is missing in Sub-rule (2) ..
  Therefore, it is urged that the order is effective for the period of detention
E alone. The plea is clearly without any substance because of Sub-Rule 5(a)
  and 5(c) of Rule 10. The said provisions refer to an order of suspension made
  or deemed to have been made. Obviously, the only order which is even
  initially deemed to have been made under Rule 10 is one contemplated under
  Sub-Rule (2). The said provision under Rule 10(5)(a) makes it crystal clear
F that the order continues to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by
  an authority competent to do so while Rule 10(5)(c) empowers the competent
  authority to modify or revoke also. No exception is made relating to an order
  under Rules 10(2) and 10(5)(a). On the contrary, specifically it encompasses
  an order under Rule 10(2). If the order deemed to have been made under
  Rule 10(2) is to loose effectiveness automatically after the period of detention
G envisaged comes to an end, there would be no scope for the same being
  modified as contended by the respondents and there was no need to make
  such provisions as are engrafted in Rule 10(5)(a) and (c) and instead an
  equally deeming provision to bring an end to the duration of the deemed
  order would by itself suffice for the purpose.

H         Thus, it is clear that the order of suspension does not loose its efficacy
                    U.0.1. v. RAJIV KUMAR [PASAYAT . .T.]                    607
and is not automatically terminated the moment the detention comes to an end         A
and the person is set at large. It could lie modified and revoked by another
order as envisaged under Rule 10(5)(c) and until that order is made, the same
continues by the operation of Rule I0(5)(a) and the employee has no right
to be re-instated to service. This position was also highlighted in Balvantrai
Ratilal Patel v. State of Maharashtra, AIR {1968) SC 800. Indication of              B
expression "pending further order" in the order of suspension was the basis
for aforesaid view.

      Reference has been made to Sub-Rule 5(b) of Rule JO. According to the
High Court the same appears to have been made "ex majori cautela".
Conceptually Sub-Rules 5(a) and 5(b) operate in different fields and for             C
different purposes, i.e., when more than one disciplinary proceedings come
to be initiated to cover all such situations. Both the provisions have to be read
harmoniously. Otherwise, Sub-Rule 5(a) would become meaningless and Sub-
Rule S(c) purposeless and both provisions would be rendered otiose and
superfluous.
                                                                                     D
      View of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court (supra) that the
legal fiction created ceases to be effective for the purpose of suspension
while operative for other purposes is clearly unsustainable and we do not
approve of the same.

       It is well settled principle in Jaw that the Court cannot read anything       E
into a statutory provision or rewrite a provision which is plain and
unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the Legislature. The language employed
in a statute or any statutory provision is the determinative factor of legislative
intent of policy makers.

       Words and phrases are symbols that stimulate mental references to             F
referents. The object of interpreting a statute or any statutory provision is to
ascertain the intention of the Legislature or the Authority enacting it. (See
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Mis. Price Waterhouse and
Anr., AIR {1998) SC 74). The intention of the maker is primarily to be
gathered from the language used, which means that attention should be paid           G
to what has been said as also to what has not been said. As a consequence,
a construction which requires for its support, addition or substitution of words
or which results in rejection of words as meaningless has to be avoided. As
observed in Crawfordv. Spooner, (1846 (6) Moore PC I), Courts, cannot aid
the Legislatures, defective phrasing of an Act, we cannot add or mend, and
by construction make up deficiencies which are left there. (Also See The State       H
    608                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A of Gujarat and Ors. v. Dilipbhai Nathjibhai Patel and Anr., (JT 1998 (2) SC
    253)). It is contrary to all rules of construction to read words into an Act
    unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. (See Stock v. Frank Jones (Tiptan)
    Ltd, (1978) I All ER 948 (HL). Rules of interpretation do not permit Courts
    to do so, unless the provision as it stands is meaningless or of doubtful
    meaning. Courts are not entitled to read words into an Act of Parliament
B   unless clear reason for it is to be found within the four comers of the Act
    itself. (Per Lord Lorebum L.C. in Vickers Sons and Maxim Ltd v. Evans, (1910)
    AC 445 (HL), quoted in Jamma Masjid, Mercara v. Kodimaniandra Deviah
    and Ors., AIR (1962) SC 847.

C         The question is not what may be supposed and has been intended, but
    what has been said. "Statutes should be construed not as theorems of Euclid".
    Judge Learned Hand said, "but words must be construed with some imagination
    of the purposes which lie behind them". (See Lenigh Valley Coal Co. v.
    Yensavage, 218 FR 547). The view was re-iterated in Union of India and
    Ors. v. Filip Tiago De Gama ofVedem Vasco De Gama, AIR (1990) SC 981.
D
          In D.R. Venkatchalam and Ors. etc. v. Dy. Transport Commissioner
    and Ors. etc., AIR (I 977) SC 842, it was observed that Courts must avoid
    the danger of an a priori determination of the meaning of a provision based
    on their own pre-conceived notions of ideological structure or scheme into
    which the provision to be interpreted is somewhat fitted. They are not entitled
E   to usurp legislative function under the disguise of interpretation.

          While interpreting a provision, the Court only interprets the law and
    cannot legislate it. If a provision of law is misused and subjected to the abuse
    of process of law, it is for the legislature to amend, modify or repeal it, if
F   deemed necessary. (See Commissioner o/Sales Tax, MP. v. Popular Trading
    Company, Ujjain, [2000] 5 SCC 515. The legislative casus omissus cannot be
    supplied by judicial interpretative process.

        Two principles of construction - one relating to casus omissus and the
  other in regard to reading the statute/statutory provision as a whole - appear
G to be well settled. Under the first principle a casus omissus cannot be supplied
  by the Court except in the case of clear necessity and when reason for it is
  found in the four comers of the statute itself. But, at the satne time a casus
  omissus should not be readily inferred and for that purpose all the parts of
  a statute or section must be construed together and every clause of a section
  should be construed with reference to the context and other clauses thereof
H so that the construction to be put on a particular provision makes a consistent
)



                        U.0.1. v. RA.llV KUMAR [PASA YAT, J.]                    609
    enactment of the whole statute. This would be more so if literal construction A
    of a particular clause leads to manifestly absurd or anomalous results which
    could not have been intended by the Legislature. "An intention to produce
    an unreasonable result", said Danackwerts, L.J. in Artemiou v. Procopiou,
    (1966) I QB 878), "is not to be imputed to a statute if there is some other
    construction available". Where to apply words literally would "defeat the B
    obvious intention of the legislation and produce a wholly unreasonable result"
    we must "do some violence to the words" and so achieve that obvious
    intention and produce a rational construction. (Per Lord Reid in Luke v. !RC,
    ( 1966) AC 557 where at p. 577 he also observed: "this is not a new problem,
    though our standard of drafting is such that it rarely emerges".

          It is then true that, "when the words of a law extend not to an
                                                                                         c
    inconvenience rarely happening, but do to those which often happen, it is
    good reason not to strain the words further than they reach, by saying it is
    casus omissus, and that the law intended quae frequentius accident." "But,"
    on the other hand," it is no reason, when the words of a law do enough
    extend to an inconvenience seldom happening, that they should not extend             D
    to it as well as if it happened more frequently, because it happens but seldom"
    (See Fenton v. Hampton 11 Moore, P.C. 345). A casus omissus ought not to
    be created by interpretation, save in some case of strong necessity. Where,
    however, a casus omissus does really occur, either through the inadvertence
    of the legislature, or on the principle quod semel aut bis existit proetereunt       E
    legislatores, the rule is that the particular case, thus left unprovided for, must
    be disposed of according to the law as it existed before such statute - Casus
    omissus et oblivioni datus dispositioni communis Juris relinquitur; "a casus
    omissus," observed Buller, J. in Jones v. Smart (I T.R. 52), "can in no case
    be supplied by a court of law, for that would be to make laws."
                                                                                         F
          The golden rule for construing wills, statutes, and, in fact, all written
    instruments has been thus stated: "The grammatical and ordinary sense of the
    words is to be adhered to unless that would lead to some absurdity or some
    repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument, in which case the
    grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified, so as to avoid
    that absurdity and inconsistency, but no further" (See Grey v. Pearson 6 H.L. G
    Case 61). The latter part of this "golden rule" must, however, be applied with
    much caution. "if," remarked Jervis, C.J., "the precise words used are plain
    and unambiguous in our judgment, we are bound to construe them in their
    ordinary sense, even though it lead, in our view of the case, to an absurdity
    or manifest injustice. Words may be modified or varied where their import is H
    610                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. I S.C.R.                  •
A doubtful or obscure. But we assume the functions of legislators when we
    depart from the ordinary meaning of the precise words used, merely because
    we see, or fancy we see, an absurdity or manifest injustice from an adherence
    to their literal meaning" (See Abley v. Dale 11, C.B. 378).

        The inevitable conclusion therefore is that the order in terms of Rule
B I0(2) is not restricted in its point of duration or efficacy to the period of actual.
  detention only. It continues to be operative unless modified or revoked under
  Sub-Rule 5(c), as provided under Sub-rule 5(a).

         Rule 10(5)(b) deals with a situation where a government servant is
   suspended or is deemed t9 have suspended and any other disciplinary                    •
C proceeding is commenced against him during continuance of that suspension
   irrespective of the fact whether the earlier suspension was in connecti9n with
   any disciplinary proceeding or otherwise. Rule 10 (5)(b) can be pressed into
   service only when any other disciplinary proceeding is also commenced than
   the one for and during which suspension or deemed suspension was already
D in force, to meet the situation until the termination of all such proceedings.
   In contradiction, Rule 10(5)(a) has application in relation to an order of
   suspension already made or deemed to have been made. Rule 10(5)(b) has no
 _ application to the facts of the present case and no inspiration or support
   could be drawn for the stand taken for the respondents or the decision arrived
   at by the High Court. It is Rule I 0(5)(a) alone which has application and the
E deemed suspension would continue to be in force till anything has been done
   under Rule 10(5Xc). Similarly, Rules 10(3) and 10(4) operate in different fields
   and merely because a specific provision is made for its continuance, until
   further orders in them itself due to certain further developments taking place
   and interposition of orders made by Court or appellate and reviewing authority
F to meet and get over such specific eventualities, in given circumstances and
   that does not in any way affect the order of suspension deemed to have been
   made under Rule I 0(2).

        Strong reliance was placed on Nelson Motis v. Union of India, [1992]
  4 sec 711 to contend that omission of the expression "until further orders"
G in Rule I0(2) was conscious and, therefore, the period covered for "deemed
  suspension" was restricted to period of detention. Such plea is without
  substance. In Nelson's case (supra) the respective scope and ambit of Rule
  10(2) and Rule 10(3) fell for consideration. As indicated above, the said
  provisions apply in conceptually and contextually different situations and
  have even no remote link with a situation envisaged under Rule I 0(2). In fact,
H this Court in the said case categorically observed as under·:
                    U.O.l. v. RAJIV KUMAR [PASAYAT. J.]                     611

             "The comparison of the language with that of Sub-Rule (3) re-          A
         inforces the conclusion that Sub-Rule (4) has to be understood in the
         natural sense". (underlined for emphasis).

      Another plea raised relates to a suspension for a very long period. It
is submitted that the same renders the suspension invalid. The plea is clearly      B
untenable. The period of suspension should not be unnecessarily prolonged
but if plausible reasons exist and the authorities feel that the suspension
needs to be continued, merely because it is for a long period that does not
invalidate the suspension.

      Some other pleas were pressed into service to contend that High Court's       C
order is justified. It is submitted that these stands were highlighted before the
High Court though not specifically dealt with. Since the High Court has not
dealt with these aspects, we do not take the other contentions into account to
express any view.

      Though factually it is undisputed that fresh order of suspension had          D
been passed in each case, the same relates to a separate cause of action and
if any dispute is raised as regards its legality, the same has to be adjudicated
by the concerned Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be, on its own merits
and in accordance with law.

     The impugned order of the High Court in each case stands quashed.              E
The appeals are allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

S.K.S.                                                        Appeals allowed.